Article share options

Share this on

Send this by

Physicist and presenter Professor Brian Cox discusses how to fight scientific ignorance, where we are heading as a species and who will get us to Mars.

We're 'on the verge' of becoming a multi-planet species

Space travel is more than planting a flag on another planet, Professor Cox says.(AP: Craig Bailey/Florida Today)

Humanity will develop a more collaborative mindset when it starts to reach to Mars and beyond, Professor Cox says.

"I think spaceflight can do more. It's not just planting a flag on a planet and it's not just sending rich tourists into space. It's actually the next step on the road to making us a multi-planet civilisation."

"I genuinely think that we are on the verge of doing that.

"We now have the means to do it. And for the first time in a long time, we have the will do to it.

"It's not actually governments now. But it's companies like Blue Origin, SpaceX and Virgin Galactic. These companies have ambition."

The first mission to Mars might be a public-private collaboration

SpaceX plan to send people to Mars using its interplanetary transport system.(Supplied: SpaceX)

The mission to land people on Mars will be "a very different thing from the Apollo program," Professor Cox says.

"I suspect that the first missions to Mars will be some kind of public-private partnership that'll be partly funded by private money."

Professor Cox now tells ABC News the best way to tackle people who reject the science might be to not engage them at all.

"In general, it's not a good idea to engage in people who are obstinate in that way," he says.

"There's a debate that goes on in the scientific community about this."

Professor Brian Cox came well prepared to tackle the topic of climate change on Q&A last year.

Professor Cox says one view is that it can be counterproductive to try to argue with people who disregard the scientific consensus.

"You essentially elevate them to a level they should not be at. You present to the public the impression that there is a legitimate debate to be had," he says.

"However, some of these people, certainly in Australia and the US, not so much in Europe these days, but some of these people are politicians. So they have a platform. So what do you do?"

"I'm two minds.

"Programs like Q&A, they're almost pantomime in a sense. There's clearly no time to debate the detail of a complex idea such as climate change.

"So really it comes down to an impressionistic game. Who do the viewers trust, who appears more plausible? It's a difficult position to be in actually.

"I don't know the answer really. I can see both sides of the argument [on whether you should debate these people]."

Is NASA and climate science under threat in Trump's America?

"Yep."

"We have a set of people who for their own ends have tried to discredit science," Professor Cox says.

Science is the study of nature and process by which people understand the natural world, he says, "so it's the best we can do essentially".

"So when we reach a consensus view, that's essentially a snapshot of our best knowledge of a particular process or phenomenon at any given time."

It is "ludicrous" for people to dismiss scientific consensus, Professor Cox says.(AP: Jim Lo Scalzo)

Professor Cox says scientists refine their understanding when new knowledge is acquired, so there is no "dogma" or "truths" in science.

He says it is "ludicrous" for people to dismiss scientific consensus.

"We're talking about blustering people, people who are overconfident and have no humility, who don't think. That's the sort of person who says 'I know better than these people who study these things'. It's nonsensical."

"Imagine that we're flying on a plane, and imagine that the passengers decide that they think they can fly the plane better than the captain. So they say 'come on, we've had a vote and we all think that it's our right as a citizen to land this plane rather than you. It doesn't matter that you've studied it for 20 years'.

"That's what we're dealing with when we're dealing with these people who are in powerful positions in certain countries.

"What you're saying is, I don't believe the best that we can do as a human race at a particular time. It's nonsensical to me."

The answer to the threat of scientific ignorance is education, he says.

"It's making sure we invest in education so the citizens in our democratic societies can take sensible decisions and see these people for the charlatans that they are."